How Do You Repent?

[manol]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

An atheist is capable of recognizing they have done wrong, not just a mistake but harmed themselves or someone else.  If they regret this and try to change, removing that inclination to harm, I see no reason why that can’t be labeled as repentance.

And if LDS doctrine is accurate, then God judges by the laws people are aware of in their lives and so would judge the repentance of atheists by how their heart was changed towards themselves and others they had harmed so they no longer acted in those harmful ways, imo.

Added:  the light of Christ is available to all.  I don’t see any reason why that wouldn’t pull good people towards repentance even if they didn’t believe in God or had faith in a non Abrahamic religion.

 

I have a close family member who is atheist and imo his morality surpasses the morality of the predominantly-LDS family of origin I grew up in.  Rather than finding creative ways to rationalize questionable behavior by invoking this or that scriptural precedent or religious teaching, he just goes straight to what feels right to him.  I've seen him in a position of near absolute power in various situations and instead of doing what would arguably be justifiable and clearly in his own best interest, he does what is right. 

[rpn]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

if we stumble even if we lived for years and years without repeating the behaviour and did not actively seek to do it again, but for whatever reason we slipped some back into the rut we had pulled ourselves out of with God’s help and kept out of with God’s help up till then.

Maybe my words didn't express what I mean.   When we repent fully, we have no more desire to sin.    Until we get to that point, we remain in process of becoming.    I fully agree that mortals can talk to themselves in ways that discourage progress in becoming.   But I don't any dissonance  in the black and whilte lines of  you have to stop doing it, at all, ever to have repented, and the Atonement closing the entire gap between any baptized member's personal best and Quick repentance of actual sin.    I see the two positions as simply part of our personal best getting better and better as we do it, without accepting imperfections that we can and will eventually leave us in full control of our parts passions and appetites.

[rpn]

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

This may come as a shock, but I believe non-believers can repent

Of course, everyone who ever lives on earth can repent.   But you do have to know the/a law or at least have some sense of right or wrong (which is the Light of Christ and available to anyone who lives on earth, whatever their circumstances or faith/or lack thereof).

[Chum]

4 hours ago, manol said:

I have a close family member who is atheist and imo his morality surpasses the morality of the predominantly-LDS family of origin I grew up in.  Rather than finding creative ways to rationalize questionable behavior by invoking this or that scriptural precedent or religious teaching, he just goes straight to what feels right to him.  I've seen him in a position of near absolute power in various situations and instead of doing what would arguably be justifiable and clearly in his own best interest, he does what is right. 

Is what we're taught in the Church enough to enable people to make those kind of right decisions?

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, JVW said:

..........................................

Jews may not be Christian but they worship the same God that Christians do. The God of Israel is the one who is tied to repentance, we just refer to Him by an additional name. I assume that Muslims also worship the God of Israel as well so they would be included in the same group who can repent -if- Jesus is required for repentance.

Those who do not believe in the Bible and in the commandments will have different definitions of sin, or what is wrong. There may be some overlap based on their religious texts, but in the case of an atheist with no religious text who believes in moral relativism, there ultimately is no true right and wrong as that is determined by the culture, society, and government one finds themselves living in.

.......... a prerequisite to repentance faith in Jesus Christ? So a non-believer is called to repentance but in order to do it they first need to believe in the God of Israel and after that point they would no longer be considered a non-believer?

Jews reject Jesus as part of polytheism/tritheism.  Yet they believe in repentance.  One does not need Jesus in order to have a concept of repentance.  And all humans are born with the light of Christ.  No exceptions.  Moreover, science tells us that altruism is built into our genetic being (we are preprogrammed).  All humans are raised by loving parents who will do anything for their children.  Humans are socialized to feel sorrow for this and joy for that.  All can feel love and bond with others.  The notion that they cannot repent is absurd.

[manol]

7 hours ago, Chum said:

Is what we're taught in the Church enough to enable people to make those kind of right decisions?

Yes.

Two principles my atheist family member deliberately lives by are "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself", and obviously these teachings are present in the Church.  I would argue that is he also relatively unencumbered by judgmental rationalizations which "compete" with these two principles.

For instance, he inherited an old-but-functional house in a rural location.  A squatter moved in.  His primary concern was what would happen to the squatter if she was evicted, as she is a smoker and in poor health.  He never considered cutting off the utilities to pressure her.  Instead, the solution he found was to donate the house to a sympathetic relative of the squatter who is happy to let her remain there. 

The only person I can think of who might not find him to be an idiot is Jesus, with his insane "if someone takes your coat, give him your cloak also" business model.  Who actually does that?  My atheist half-brother. 

Edited April 2, 2025 by manol

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Yes.

Two principles my atheist family member deliberately lives by are "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself", and obviously these teachings are present in the Church.  I would argue that is he also relatively unencumbered by judgmental rationalizations which "compete" with these two principles.

For instance, he inherited an old-but-functional house in a rural location.  A squatter moved in.  His primary concern was what would happen to the squatter if she was evicted, as she is a smoker and in poor health.  He never considered cutting off the utilities to pressure her.  Instead, the solution he found was to donate the house to a sympathetic relative of the squatter who is happy to let her remain there. 

The only person I can think of who might not find him to be an idiot is Jesus, with his insane "if someone takes your coat, give him your cloak also" business model.  Who actually does that?  My atheist half-brother. 

I'm not even surprised about this, because of what I've seen from you.

[halconero]

On 3/31/2025 at 5:49 PM, Rain said:

To be clear, I'm no longer a believing member.  I believe in God, but not the church and I'm not sure of my beliefs about the atonement. 

Do you mind if I ask about the part in bold, @Rain? Perhaps here or in another thread?

Over the past few years I've come to a greater realization that we don't have a doctrinal theory of the atonement in the Church.

I'm not suggesting that the Church has no doctrine of the atonement. Nor is it unclear or contradictory about its importance. The general authorities regularly emphasize its reality and necessity.

What I am suggesting is we don't have a systematic theory of the Atonement, its metaphysics, and its comprehensive implications for the individual, the body of the Church, or humanity generally. My sense is that general authorities often develop their own emphases and explanations for the atonement. Some of these align with existing theories of the atonement, while others have generated their own.

That isn't all together a bad thing. It allows for pastoral flexibility, application, and some theological creativity. It's also baked into our open canon and local lay ministry.

That said, I think there are trade-offs:

1. We sometimes blend different theories inherited from the historical Christian context (particularly the Reformed traditions) in ways that conflict with each other.
2. Inconsistent explanations can lead to confusion among youth, converts, or even long-term members.

For example, we sometimes adopt the language of a maximalist Penal Substitution ("Christ suffered the consequences of sin so we don't have to") while being ignorant of its origins in 16th century Calvinism, where the choice to be saved is entirely outside the hands of individual humanity. We then blend it with teachings of moral agency ("We must therefore repent and be sanctified, that we might be forgiven"). The take away becomes that Jesus paid the price, but you must too to access his help. Certain aspects of penal substitution are grounded in scripture as is agency. They can be reconciled, but it's difficult to do in a consistent way without a theory to frame it.

All that is to say, I would be genuinely interested in hearing your beliefs about the atonement. Not as a scientist studies an ant—I'm just realizing for myself that I'm just one additional blind guy in a room trying to understand what the Christological elephant looks like.

[halconero]

Honestly, I think this is simultaneously one of the toughest and easiest questions I've seen on this board.

Easy, because I think it really comes down to the turning of our intentions and attention towards God. It is adopting and internalizing a correct view of His character, our own, and that of the people around us.

Mechanistically, you can discuss confession and restitution, both of which are correct, but it's something more than that, which is hard to explain to others.

Difficult, because I'm not sure it's clear how to inculcate in ourselves or in others a desire to do any of the above. Doctrinally, that might not even be possible. It might have more to do with responding to the tugs of the heart urging us back home. 

I've come to the belief, based on living overseas, that godly sorrow for sin has nothing to do with shame. Instead, it's a realization of our alienation from God, and a yearning desire to be close to Him. Repentance is letting that desire cooperate with the means He has given to bring us home to Him.

Edited April 2, 2025 by halconero

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, halconero said:

They can be reconciled, but it's difficult to do in a consistent way without a theory to frame it.

Truth

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All humans are raised by loving parents who will do anything for their children.  Humans are socialized to feel sorrow for this and joy for that.  All can feel love and bond with others.

These seem to be more ideal than reality, though I would hope the majority of humanity have been raised by loving parents.

Do you really believe all can feel love and bond with others?   I have seen a few who seem incapable of it in my own life as well as come across many more who have shared they don’t experience love as they see it explained by others, usually because they grew up in very screwed up families and were at least neglected.

Edited April 2, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

Do you mind if I ask about the part in bold, @Rain? Perhaps here or in another thread?

Over the past few years I've come to a greater realization that we don't have a doctrinal theory of the atonement in the Church.

I'm not suggesting that the Church has no doctrine of the atonement. Nor is it unclear or contradictory about its importance. The general authorities regularly emphasize its reality and necessity.

What I am suggesting is we don't have a systematic theory of the Atonement, its metaphysics, and its comprehensive implications for the individual, the body of the Church, or humanity generally. My sense is that general authorities often develop their own emphases and explanations for the atonement. Some of these align with existing theories of the atonement, while others have generated their own.

That isn't all together a bad thing. It allows for pastoral flexibility, application, and some theological creativity. It's also baked into our open canon and local lay ministry.

That said, I think there are trade-offs:

1. We sometimes blend different theories inherited from the historical Christian context (particularly the Reformed traditions) in ways that conflict with each other.
2. Inconsistent explanations can lead to confusion among youth, converts, or even long-term members.

For example, we sometimes adopt the language of a maximalist Penal Substitution ("Christ suffered the consequences of sin so we don't have to") while being ignorant of its origins in 16th century Calvinism, where the choice to be saved is entirely outside the hands of individual humanity. We then blend it with teachings of moral agency ("We must therefore repent and be sanctified, that we might be forgiven"). The take away becomes that Jesus paid the price, but you must too to access his help. Certain aspects of penal substitution are grounded in scripture as is agency. They can be reconciled, but it's difficult to do in a consistent way without a theory to frame it.

All that is to say, I would be genuinely interested in hearing your beliefs about the atonement. Not as a scientist studies an ant—I'm just realizing for myself that I'm just one additional blind guy in a room trying to understand what the Christological elephant looks like.

It's interesting that you pick this out of what I say because I think it's the start of where I stopped believing in the church.  Hard to say because it's been a 20+ year process and it certainly didn't feel like doubts to start with. It was just things that didn't make sense to me.  I've asked questions about here on the board, but I think few understood my questions, but it sounds like you would have understood them even though what you are saying is different than what I was thinking about. 

First of all, I'm not sure if the atonement actually happened or not.  Second, if it did, I don't believe God sent his Son to suffer, nor do I believe he presented that one of his children needed to do it.  That just feels abusive to me and having strongly felt his love it, to me, just doesn't fit Him.  

Over the years though I've wondered how it all works. Like, in the church there is definitely a physical part according to church doctrine with the physical suffering of Jesus and blood spilt and with using physical symbols of the sacrament plus the resurection to perfect bodies and all the other physical stuff. And there are all the spiritual and debt examples like paying for a bicycle, but how does it work? What exactly is changing? If a person is not accountable before 8 is there a physical change in their body at 8 that makes them accountable?  Are there changes with each sin and changes back each time they repent? But there must be something more than sin and repentance since babies don't have Celestial bodies. 

And how does a change in Christ's body transfer to our bodies? Calm once mentioned a possibility of something like light shinning on you (I don't remember her exact words), but that kind of makes sense since light is such a big thing in gospel teachings. Everyone takes it as symbolic, but maybe there is also physical truth to it. I lean that way in my possible beliefs rather than a blood sacrifice. 

If, like Elder Uchtdorf says, there is an enabling part of the atonement then how does that fit in? Your base is 0, you sin so you go to -1, then with repentance and the atonement you are cleansed and go to 0 and then enabled and go to 1? And as you learn and grow the enabling power grows too till you are a 10 Celestial level? 

I'm sorry, I have so many more questions about it than beliefs or feelings. Many, many more questions. 

Edited April 3, 2025 by Rain

[halconero]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm sorry, I have so many more questions about it than beliefs of feelings. Many, many more questions. 

No need to apologize.

Thank you, in fact. These are all incredibly important questions to ask regarding the atonement, many of which I share personally. At last count, it was 30 or so in the spreadsheet I use to keep my thoughts organized, and about another 90 or so that I'd consider to be derivations of the first set. That's not a game of one-upmanship, promise. It's just a full extension of a shared experience around this topic in particular.

I actually think this big question of "what is the atonement?" precedes "how do we repent?" We're all going to give and accept different answers here, some more correct than others. None of which will comprehensively answer the question. That's maybe okay, or even the point.

It still leaves me disquieted though (in a good way, personally; I don't expect others to share or feel the same).

Edited April 2, 2025 by halconero

[manol]

56 minutes ago, halconero said:

These are all incredibly important questions to ask regarding the atonement, many of which I share personally. At last count, it was 30 or so in the spreadsheet I use to keep my thoughts organized, and about another 90 or so that I'd consider to be derivations of the first set.

I admire your thorough and methodical investigation into a "systematic theory of the atonement", and hope the day comes when you have a theory, or at least an understanding, you feel completely at peace with and perhaps even feel comfortable sharing.  

I am not sure there is a theory which reconciles everything that has been said about the atonement because I'm not sure everything that has been said about the atonement has been the highest level of truth on the subject.

 

56 minutes ago, halconero said:

I actually think this big question of "what is the atonement?" precedes "how do we repent?"

Agreed! 

Imo the LDS Church not having a well-delineated systematic theory of the atonement is a feature rather than a bug, as this effectively invites the seeker to seek. 

Edited April 2, 2025 by manol

[halconero]

53 minutes ago, manol said:

I admire your thorough and methodical investigation into a "systematic theory of the atonement", and hope the day comes when you have a theory, or at least an understanding, you feel completely at peace with and perhaps even feel comfortable sharing.  

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to develop a comprehensive theory of the atonement. I find that questions help me order my thinking, and I'm oddly more comfortable and confident accepting a degree of uncertainty than I was in prior stages of like.

I would be very happy to share though. For the past couple years I've been working through the Book of Mormon asking myself what I would know about Christ, the atonement, commandments, sin, and their function/effects if all other writings or scripture were erased and all I had to rely on was King Benjamin, for example.

It's been comforting to realize that Nephi, Jacob, King Benjamin, Alma, and everyone else attempts, in their own way, to describe and systematize their experience with Christ. It doesn't make them individually wrong; it makes them uniquely right in their own particular set of pastoral circumstances, life history, and personal means of revelation.

I'll share my spreadsheet of questions sometime.

53 minutes ago, manol said:

I am not sure there is a theory which reconciles everything that has been said about the atonement because I'm not sure everything that has been said about the atonement has been the highest level of truth on the subject.

I agree with that. People take the wrong lesson from the parable of the blind men and the elephant when they suggest that subjective experience eliminates the possibility of absolute truth. The elephant exists, complete with form and function. Its emphasis is that subjective experiences with truth can only be generalized so far. A secondary aspect is that each blind man approaches the elephant from a different angle. Our own life history, personal experiences, and current circumstances inform how we experience the elephant (or atonement), in this case.

The fact that John Calvin was a lawyer before he was a theologian is not incidental to Penal Substitution.

53 minutes ago, manol said:

Agreed! 

Imo the LDS Church not having a well-delineated systematic theory of the atonement is a feature rather than a bug, as this effectively invites the seeker to seek. 

I tend to agree, with caveats.

I don't think it's a matter of features versus bugs, but trade-offs. On the whole, I think the trade-offs associated with a doctrinally rich but institutionally open take on the atonement are beneficial.

One of these, as you say, is to effectively invite the seeker to seek. I worry that many who are effectively invited to seek, seek ineffectively. One of the benefits of a theoretical framework is it helps organize questions into investigative tools, rather than gnawing doubts. The shelf analogy for questions has been lauded and criticized, but I'm more worried about whether we know how to organize our shelves. If it becomes a haphazard dumping ground for unorganized sets of questions, with which we have zero clue to how to link together or answer systematically (both through study and through revelation), it's no wonder that some break. If, instead, we treat our shelves like libraries, it allows to gain, with time, not only knowledge, but more useful questions in the pursuit of God, ourselves, and the "why" behind the world.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water and adopt a comprehensive theory in the Church. I do think discussing different theories unique to the Church and outside it can help us understand the breadth of God's love for his children, and weigh past, present, and future teaching on the atonement.

[halconero]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Truth

On the one hand, I lean towards inclusivity when it comes to different takes on the atonement, and echo the late Reverend Quick:

"If we start from the fundamental and cardinal thought of God's act of love in Jesus Christ...I think we can reach a reconciling point of view, from which each type of theory is seen to make its essential contribution to the truth, although no one theory, nor any number of theories, can be sufficient to express its fullness."

On the other, I think some explanations naturally exclude others, or at least aspects of them. You can accept both a maximalist substitution theory with another that emphasis participation in Christ, and if I have to accept one over the other into the larger fold of ideas, I lean to the latter.

All that said, the multiplicity of sometimes contradictory explanations might just be the point, which is that God operates from a "different strokes for different folks" mindset when it comes to tossing out a variety of promptings, revelations, or scripture on the matter. In fact, He (if you accept it's Him talking) gets pretty close to outright saying this in D&C 19:

Quote

Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

If his name's glory is our immortality and eternal life, it seems to me that God sometimes provides explanations that are not factually true in the most literal sense, but are what's needed for at least some of us to get on board.

Or to quote Reddit user /u/EACCES:

Quote

So you wanna be saved, right? Saved from what?

The devil owns you? Ransom.

Evil's got you down? Christus Victor.

God's debts must be paid? Penal Substitution.

You and your friend Adam keep failing at the same spot? Recapitulation.

Dishonoured your faith and family? Satisfaction.

You're a menace to society? Governmental.

You're a hot mess and can't get your life in order? Moral transformation.

You just need a good example to follow? Moral example.

Feeling isolated, ashamed, and in hiding? Embracement.

Seeing pain and suffering all around you? Shared atonement.

In the end, you're saved, no matter which one is true. But if you want to tell the story of how the superhero saves you, it's a better story if you can explain how you got into trouble in the first place.

 

[manol]

43 minutes ago, halconero said:

I think some explanations naturally exclude others, or at least aspects of them. You can accept both a maximalist substitution theory with another that emphasis participation in Christ, and if I have to accept one over the other into the larger fold of ideas, I lean to the latter.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "participation in Christ"?  I don't recall encountering that wording in an LDS context before. 

And if this is something you'd rather not delve into on a public forum, I understand. 

Edited April 3, 2025 by manol

[Rain]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

No need to apologize.

Thank you, in fact. These are all incredibly important questions to ask regarding the atonement, many of which I share personally. At last count, it was 30 or so in the spreadsheet I use to keep my thoughts organized, and about another 90 or so that I'd consider to be derivations of the first set. That's not a game of one-upmanship, promise. It's just a full extension of a shared experience around this topic in particular.

I actually think this big question of "what is the atonement?" precedes "how do we repent?" We're all going to give and accept different answers here, some more correct than others. None of which will comprehensively answer the question. That's maybe okay, or even the point.

It still leaves me disquieted though (in a good way, personally; I don't expect others to share or feel the same).

It's good to hear this because sometimes I've felt rather alone. 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, manol said:

LDS Church not having a well-delineated systematic theory of the atonement is a feature rather than a bug, as this effectively invites the seeker to seek. 

Completely agree.  While I enjoy reading theology of others, I like the openness of ours inviting exploration.

OTOH, we talk about having answers others don’t have and that can set up expectations that can’t be fulfilled by turning to authority or tradition.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, halconero said:

In the end, you're saved, no matter which one is true. But if you want to tell the story of how the superhero saves you, it's a better story if you can explain how you got into trouble in the first place.

Love it.

[halconero]

17 hours ago, manol said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "participation in Christ"?

No problem. It helps to define substitution first.

Substitution and participation represent two distinct ways of understanding how Christ's life, death, and resurrection affect human salvation.

Substitutionary atonement emphasizes that Christ acts as a substitute who bears a punishment or consequence on behalf of humanity. Individual humanity is deserving of punishment or these consequences either due to individual sin, or because of a depraved nature inherited from Adam and Eve. Christ suffers and dies in our place and absorbs the punishment or consequence we deserve.

There are different substitutionary models, all of which relate to whatever problem Christ's atonement is meant to solve.

Sacrificial/Ransom

This is what's called the "Classic paradigm," meaning one of the oldest views. Sin makes us slaves to the devil and to death. Depending on your view (for example, if you're Jewish around Paul's time), Jesus became the perfect sin offering on the mercy seat. He is sort of a substitute for us, but not in the same way as later paradigms might illustrate. It's not so much that he absorbs God's wrath or the consequences of sin. Rather, it's that the temple sacrifice is an extremely *good* thing—whose savour wafts up to God. He's a substitute in the sense that he can offer himself without blemish, whereas we ourselves are blemished by sin. So the vicarious nature is more like a family coming to the altar to sacrifice a lamb on their own behalf. The lamb isn't the vicarious recipient of punishment—it's the vicarious representative of the family offering themselves to God.

A related variation of this is that sin makes us slaves to death and the devil (alternatively, the Fall makes us slaves to sin). It's no coincidence that slavery is used here, given this developed in antiquity around the Mediterranean. God the Father offers His Son in what's essentially a hostage swap with the devil and death (alternatively, Jesus offers himself). Jesus would be a way more fruitful and enticing slave than we could ever be, given He's (a) God and (b) perfect. Satan and death. Except, being God and being perfect, there's just no way that Satan, death, or sin could keep Christ bound. So Christ busts out of hell and death, with some depictions of this even including a very entertaining idea that Christ spent three or so days flipping tables, breaking windows, and being a general hooligan throughout Hades, before He was resurrected. This may also involve a mass prison break, with Him leading the way.

This is substitution, not in the sense that Jesus is justly punished on our behalf. He's simply a much more worthy hostage or ransom than we can be, and he either pays Satan for our release, or tricks him into giving us up. Later theologians (like Anselm) had an issue with the idea that God owed Satan anything, so they developed alternatives. We accept the prisoner swap by becoming clients of Christ. He, of his own good will and grace, offers to save us as our patron. We are free to accept and become his clients through pistis, or faithfulness, love, trust, and covenant. It's not that we're trying to buy his support. Rather, a patron-client relationship is the natural outgrowth of an act where Jesus conducts a prisoner swap or busts us out of jail. We do it because he loves us, and because we love him.

Satisfaction

One of the earliest versions was articulated by Anselm of Canterbury, who served there as Archbishop from 1093 to 1109.

Anselm viewed our relationship to God through the relational system he was familiar with—feudalism. God is our feudal lord and we his knights, pages, peasants, etc. The nature of sin is similar to Sir Lancelot's affair with Guinevere (my metaphor, not Anselm's). It's not just adultery, but an offence against God's honour. Not only that, but our offence against the king causes us to fail in our quest for righteousness, similar to how Lancelot fails in his quest for the Holy Grail due to his affair. God's honour is besmirched, and we cannot repay.

For Anselm, Jesus satisfies the honour of God by perfectly undertaking the quest for righteousness on our behalf, culminating in his death, as any good knight should be willing to die for their sovereign. He is Galahad to our Lancelot—the perfect knight who finds the grail due to his purity and righteousness. In fact, plenty of legends have Galahad being able to choose the timing of his death, following his success. His success is enough to cover for Lancelot's failure. That's not Anselm's metaphor, but it gets at his view—Christ's success satisfies the honour of God and restores humanity to the proper feudal order. He take advantage of the atonement by more or less becoming Christ's page/servant in the feudal order through the sacraments of the church and works of righteousness—not because those works save us, but because they're what a good page owes to their feudal overseer.

Penal Substitution

I mentioned this earlier, but it's no coincidence that main contributor to penal substitution, John Calvin, was a lawyer before he ever became a theologian.

The Fall makes humanity depraved and only deserving of God's wrath. We are rebellious by nature against our sovereign king. We only deserve death and hellfire. There is nothing we can do to merit his help. Individual sin is an outgrowth of depravity, but it's the latter that damns us all equally.

John Calvin's first work wasn't a theological text, but a commentary on the ancient Roman author Seneca's work, De Clementia (on mercy). Seneca wrote about how rulers (in his case, Nero) have the absolute right and responsibility to punish evil. Seneca argues that rulers should periodically dispense clemency. Clemency is not pity, where the ruler forgives punishment due to emotion. Nor is it generosity, or a reward for good behaviour. Clemency is the withholding of a punishment where punishment is deserved, for the purpose of demonstrating the goodness of the sovereignty and maintaining public order. John Calvin takes some issue with Seneca's Stoic philosophy, but by and large agrees with his political views on crime and punishment. Remember, clemency is a tool to demonstrate the glory and goodness of the ruler, not a response to the criminal.

As Calvin develops his ideas, he applies Roman legal language to our own situation. Humanity has inherited a state of reatus, which is a Roman legal term for legal liability (which we translate as "guilt"). In Roman law, the only way to resolve legal liability is through satisfactio. The guilty party must make amends, payment, or even a ritual sacrifice. God took out His wrath and justice on Jesus, as we were incapable of taking sufficient wrath to satisfy God. On the one hand, God himself takes the punishment (as Jesus *is* God). On the other, separate personhood is still a thing in the Trinity, so it's the Father's will that the Son take his wrath.

But John Calvin is also trying to solve for the issue that criminals can do **nothing** to absolve themselves. We can't choose salvation. It is in the hands of the ruler who to punish and who to give clemency, or undeserved mercy. Hence, predestination.

I won't go into governmental theory here, except to say that it's sort of like penal substitution, except that Jesus doesn't experience the full wrath of God. Rather, God as ruler needs a whipping boy to get humanity back in line, and inflicts something lessor on Jesus for demonstration purposes.

PARTICIPATION

Participation emphasizes our union with Christ, or, conversely, Christ's union with us. Atonement is less about finding someone to take our legal place in punishment, finding a knight to win the day on our behalf, or become a hostage to free us.

Rather, Christ's atonement begins with his incarnation on the earth. He lives us a life like us, experiences what we experience, including death and the horrors of alienation from God. Alienation isn't a legal state, where we're criminals. Rather, it's more a relational distance. Sin isn't in the nature of God, so the more we sin, the more distant we become from Him in character, peace, and joy.

Jesus, being God, experiences humanity. Conversely, God wants humanity to experience godhood (theosis). For Orthodox Christians, this isn't necessarily the same thing as exaltation (though I'd argue it's related). Rather, it's God inviting us to partake in His nature, His joy, and His love—to become one with Him. He became us, to understand us, to heal us, and to help us become Him.

So, why the cross? Why the suffering? Neither are punishments. Rather, as Gregory of Nazianus said, "what is not assumed is not healed." The point is restoration, not punishment. Jesus takes on all of humanity's spiritual alienation (sin) to heal it from within. The satisfaction of justice is not paying a fine or accepting a punishment for sin. Rather, the just state of the cosmos is union with God—it's the natural, good order of things. Sin isn't a crime; it's an aberation or corruption of the natural order. Jesus satisfies justice by restoring us to that state.

Now, there are echos of substitution here, Jesus indeed takes our place. The difference, however, is the purpose is not to absorb something on our behalf, but experience what we're experiencing, in order to heal us.

The other substitution is us become as Christ—we participate in this experience *with* him, and become His substitutes as much as he becomes substitutes us.

The Pauline epistles

One of the irony of ironies is that despite Calvin relying on Paul for much of his theory of grace, Paul barely talks in terms of legal penalties or substitution.

For Paul, the major issue of the day is the grafting in of the Gentiles into God's plan. For most of human history, from Moses to Jesus, the Law was God's vehicle for perfecting humanity. Suddenly, this Jesus fellow comes along and opens the gate to all to experience God's love and salvation.

How does Jesus do this? It's not through suffering a legal penalty. It's through His divine life and conquering of evil and death (see previous comments on Ransom theory, which is the most compatible substitution theory with participation). In some views, this extends to viewing Jesus as a New Adam, who completes life and all its goals perfectly, where Adam (and us) struggled. Jesus' perfect life and death doesn't enable us to evade death, or even suffering. In fact, that's the opposite of what Paul wants us to do!

Instead, Paul invites us to die in Christ, be buried with him, and rise united with him. Contrary to modern depictions of Paul being against works, Paul emphasizes that the old man is dead, and that the new creation must participate in the life of Christ through acts of goodness, love, and mercy. Paul doesn't say, "Christ died for me that I might live." He says "I must die with Christ, that I might live in Christ."

See Galatians 5:19-21:

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

That last part should not be construed as a penal sacrifice. The language here suggests that Christ gave himself to establish a new way of dealing with sin and death, by participating with Him in its conquest. He, if anything, is a forerunner and conqueror who forged the way for both Jew and Gentile to be reconciled with God, and Paul invites us to join Christ in that triumph.

Put all together, Christ participates in our lives to the fullest extent possible, including its deepest eternal sorrows and distance from God, and figures out how to heal us from these. He then invites us to participate in His life, be healed, and take on his character and goodness.

17 hours ago, manol said:

I don't recall encountering that wording in an LDS context before. 

And if this is something you'd rather not delve into on a public forum, I understand. 

It's in a number of spots, but it's clearest articulations are in Alma 7 and 2 Nephi 31.

In the first, Christ comes down to suffer the pains, afflictions, and temptations of humanity, that he might feel our pains and sicknesses. He also takes upon him death, to loose the bands that bind his people. He takes upon him our infirmities, that he might be filled with healing mercy to succor his people.

In verse 13, sin isn't framed in legalistic terms. Sin blots us, distorts us. He suffers that blotting that he might deliver us from it. At first glance, you might infer that he's blotting out a legal record or something, but in verse 25, Alma admonishes us to keep our garments spotless. The implication is that sin is a stain that causes us to suffer. Christ participates in the experiences of his people, that he might help them and deliver them.

That participation isn't one way either; it's not just about him participating in our lives. Alma follows this up by commanding baptism and entering into a covenant relationship with God. This involves walking in "the paths of righteousness," which Alma describes as "his paths." He further admonishes the people he is teaching to "walk after the holy order of God," which, in preceding chapters (Alma 5), he says "is in Christ Jesus."

Now, Alma adopts a distinct view of atonement later on his life, but at least here, he mentions almost nothing about a substitution for humanity that is apart from humanity, but rather a joint participation in the difficulties of life, but also the holiness of God.

For sake of time, I won't elaborate on 2 Nephi 31, but suffice to say, the entire chapter is about transformative participation in Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/2/2025 at 1:47 PM, Calm said:

These seem to be more ideal than reality, though I would hope the majority of humanity have been raised by loving parents.

Do you really believe all can feel love and bond with others?   I have seen a few who seem incapable of it in my own life as well as come across many more who have shared they don’t experience love as they see it explained by others, usually because they grew up in very screwed up families and were at least neglected.

True enough.  However, the exception proves the rule.  In the stone age, everyone in the village or cave was closely related.  Very similar to the family compound in the Philippines today.  The extended family was always the bulwark of successful child-rearing, and the modern turn to the nuclear family is not nearly as successful.  I have been disappointed that the Proclamation on the Family did not follow the Bible and Book of Mormon in favoring the extended family (Mosiah 2:5,8, 5:5).  The statue of a nuclear family on Temple Square doesn't help.

Close knit societies such as the Hutterite Brethren operate with extraordinary success when compared to the modern degradation of most American families.

[manol]

20 hours ago, halconero said:

No problem. It helps to define substitution first.

Substitution and participation represent two distinct ways of understanding how Christ's life, death, and resurrection affect human salvation.

Substitutionary atonement emphasizes that Christ acts as a substitute who bears a punishment or consequence on behalf of humanity. Individual humanity is deserving of punishment or these consequences either due to individual sin, or because of a depraved nature inherited from Adam and Eve. Christ suffers and dies in our place and absorbs the punishment or consequence we deserve.

There are different substitutionary models, all of which relate to whatever problem Christ's atonement is meant to solve.

Sacrificial/Ransom

This is what's called the "Classic paradigm," meaning one of the oldest views. Sin makes us slaves to the devil and to death. Depending on your view (for example, if you're Jewish around Paul's time), Jesus became the perfect sin offering on the mercy seat. He is sort of a substitute for us, but not in the same way as later paradigms might illustrate. It's not so much that he absorbs God's wrath or the consequences of sin. Rather, it's that the temple sacrifice is an extremely *good* thing—whose savour wafts up to God. He's a substitute in the sense that he can offer himself without blemish, whereas we ourselves are blemished by sin. So the vicarious nature is more like a family coming to the altar to sacrifice a lamb on their own behalf. The lamb isn't the vicarious recipient of punishment—it's the vicarious representative of the family offering themselves to God.

A related variation of this is that sin makes us slaves to death and the devil (alternatively, the Fall makes us slaves to sin). It's no coincidence that slavery is used here, given this developed in antiquity around the Mediterranean. God the Father offers His Son in what's essentially a hostage swap with the devil and death (alternatively, Jesus offers himself). Jesus would be a way more fruitful and enticing slave than we could ever be, given He's (a) God and (b) perfect. Satan and death. Except, being God and being perfect, there's just no way that Satan, death, or sin could keep Christ bound. So Christ busts out of hell and death, with some depictions of this even including a very entertaining idea that Christ spent three or so days flipping tables, breaking windows, and being a general hooligan throughout Hades, before He was resurrected. This may also involve a mass prison break, with Him leading the way.

This is substitution, not in the sense that Jesus is justly punished on our behalf. He's simply a much more worthy hostage or ransom than we can be, and he either pays Satan for our release, or tricks him into giving us up. Later theologians (like Anselm) had an issue with the idea that God owed Satan anything, so they developed alternatives. We accept the prisoner swap by becoming clients of Christ. He, of his own good will and grace, offers to save us as our patron. We are free to accept and become his clients through pistis, or faithfulness, love, trust, and covenant. It's not that we're trying to buy his support. Rather, a patron-client relationship is the natural outgrowth of an act where Jesus conducts a prisoner swap or busts us out of jail. We do it because he loves us, and because we love him.

Satisfaction

One of the earliest versions was articulated by Anselm of Canterbury, who served there as Archbishop from 1093 to 1109.

Anselm viewed our relationship to God through the relational system he was familiar with—feudalism. God is our feudal lord and we his knights, pages, peasants, etc. The nature of sin is similar to Sir Lancelot's affair with Guinevere (my metaphor, not Anselm's). It's not just adultery, but an offence against God's honour. Not only that, but our offence against the king causes us to fail in our quest for righteousness, similar to how Lancelot fails in his quest for the Holy Grail due to his affair. God's honour is besmirched, and we cannot repay.

For Anselm, Jesus satisfies the honour of God by perfectly undertaking the quest for righteousness on our behalf, culminating in his death, as any good knight should be willing to die for their sovereign. He is Galahad to our Lancelot—the perfect knight who finds the grail due to his purity and righteousness. In fact, plenty of legends have Galahad being able to choose the timing of his death, following his success. His success is enough to cover for Lancelot's failure. That's not Anselm's metaphor, but it gets at his view—Christ's success satisfies the honour of God and restores humanity to the proper feudal order. He take advantage of the atonement by more or less becoming Christ's page/servant in the feudal order through the sacraments of the church and works of righteousness—not because those works save us, but because they're what a good page owes to their feudal overseer.

Penal Substitution

I mentioned this earlier, but it's no coincidence that main contributor to penal substitution, John Calvin, was a lawyer before he ever became a theologian.

The Fall makes humanity depraved and only deserving of God's wrath. We are rebellious by nature against our sovereign king. We only deserve death and hellfire. There is nothing we can do to merit his help. Individual sin is an outgrowth of depravity, but it's the latter that damns us all equally.

John Calvin's first work wasn't a theological text, but a commentary on the ancient Roman author Seneca's work, De Clementia (on mercy). Seneca wrote about how rulers (in his case, Nero) have the absolute right and responsibility to punish evil. Seneca argues that rulers should periodically dispense clemency. Clemency is not pity, where the ruler forgives punishment due to emotion. Nor is it generosity, or a reward for good behaviour. Clemency is the withholding of a punishment where punishment is deserved, for the purpose of demonstrating the goodness of the sovereignty and maintaining public order. John Calvin takes some issue with Seneca's Stoic philosophy, but by and large agrees with his political views on crime and punishment. Remember, clemency is a tool to demonstrate the glory and goodness of the ruler, not a response to the criminal.

As Calvin develops his ideas, he applies Roman legal language to our own situation. Humanity has inherited a state of reatus, which is a Roman legal term for legal liability (which we translate as "guilt"). In Roman law, the only way to resolve legal liability is through satisfactio. The guilty party must make amends, payment, or even a ritual sacrifice. God took out His wrath and justice on Jesus, as we were incapable of taking sufficient wrath to satisfy God. On the one hand, God himself takes the punishment (as Jesus *is* God). On the other, separate personhood is still a thing in the Trinity, so it's the Father's will that the Son take his wrath.

But John Calvin is also trying to solve for the issue that criminals can do **nothing** to absolve themselves. We can't choose salvation. It is in the hands of the ruler who to punish and who to give clemency, or undeserved mercy. Hence, predestination.

I won't go into governmental theory here, except to say that it's sort of like penal substitution, except that Jesus doesn't experience the full wrath of God. Rather, God as ruler needs a whipping boy to get humanity back in line, and inflicts something lessor on Jesus for demonstration purposes.

PARTICIPATION

Participation emphasizes our union with Christ, or, conversely, Christ's union with us. Atonement is less about finding someone to take our legal place in punishment, finding a knight to win the day on our behalf, or become a hostage to free us.

Rather, Christ's atonement begins with his incarnation on the earth. He lives us a life like us, experiences what we experience, including death and the horrors of alienation from God. Alienation isn't a legal state, where we're criminals. Rather, it's more a relational distance. Sin isn't in the nature of God, so the more we sin, the more distant we become from Him in character, peace, and joy.

Jesus, being God, experiences humanity. Conversely, God wants humanity to experience godhood (theosis). For Orthodox Christians, this isn't necessarily the same thing as exaltation (though I'd argue it's related). Rather, it's God inviting us to partake in His nature, His joy, and His love—to become one with Him. He became us, to understand us, to heal us, and to help us become Him.

So, why the cross? Why the suffering? Neither are punishments. Rather, as Gregory of Nazianus said, "what is not assumed is not healed." The point is restoration, not punishment. Jesus takes on all of humanity's spiritual alienation (sin) to heal it from within. The satisfaction of justice is not paying a fine or accepting a punishment for sin. Rather, the just state of the cosmos is union with God—it's the natural, good order of things. Sin isn't a crime; it's an aberation or corruption of the natural order. Jesus satisfies justice by restoring us to that state.

Now, there are echos of substitution here, Jesus indeed takes our place. The difference, however, is the purpose is not to absorb something on our behalf, but experience what we're experiencing, in order to heal us.

The other substitution is us become as Christ—we participate in this experience *with* him, and become His substitutes as much as he becomes substitutes us.

The Pauline epistles

One of the irony of ironies is that despite Calvin relying on Paul for much of his theory of grace, Paul barely talks in terms of legal penalties or substitution.

For Paul, the major issue of the day is the grafting in of the Gentiles into God's plan. For most of human history, from Moses to Jesus, the Law was God's vehicle for perfecting humanity. Suddenly, this Jesus fellow comes along and opens the gate to all to experience God's love and salvation.

How does Jesus do this? It's not through suffering a legal penalty. It's through His divine life and conquering of evil and death (see previous comments on Ransom theory, which is the most compatible substitution theory with participation). In some views, this extends to viewing Jesus as a New Adam, who completes life and all its goals perfectly, where Adam (and us) struggled. Jesus' perfect life and death doesn't enable us to evade death, or even suffering. In fact, that's the opposite of what Paul wants us to do!

Instead, Paul invites us to die in Christ, be buried with him, and rise united with him. Contrary to modern depictions of Paul being against works, Paul emphasizes that the old man is dead, and that the new creation must participate in the life of Christ through acts of goodness, love, and mercy. Paul doesn't say, "Christ died for me that I might live." He says "I must die with Christ, that I might live in Christ."

See Galatians 5:19-21:

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

That last part should not be construed as a penal sacrifice. The language here suggests that Christ gave himself to establish a new way of dealing with sin and death, by participating with Him in its conquest. He, if anything, is a forerunner and conqueror who forged the way for both Jew and Gentile to be reconciled with God, and Paul invites us to join Christ in that triumph.

Put all together, Christ participates in our lives to the fullest extent possible, including its deepest eternal sorrows and distance from God, and figures out how to heal us from these. He then invites us to participate in His life, be healed, and take on his character and goodness.

It's in a number of spots, but it's clearest articulations are in Alma 7 and 2 Nephi 31.

In the first, Christ comes down to suffer the pains, afflictions, and temptations of humanity, that he might feel our pains and sicknesses. He also takes upon him death, to loose the bands that bind his people. He takes upon him our infirmities, that he might be filled with healing mercy to succor his people.

In verse 13, sin isn't framed in legalistic terms. Sin blots us, distorts us. He suffers that blotting that he might deliver us from it. At first glance, you might infer that he's blotting out a legal record or something, but in verse 25, Alma admonishes us to keep our garments spotless. The implication is that sin is a stain that causes us to suffer. Christ participates in the experiences of his people, that he might help them and deliver them.

That participation isn't one way either; it's not just about him participating in our lives. Alma follows this up by commanding baptism and entering into a covenant relationship with God. This involves walking in "the paths of righteousness," which Alma describes as "his paths." He further admonishes the people he is teaching to "walk after the holy order of God," which, in preceding chapters (Alma 5), he says "is in Christ Jesus."

Now, Alma adopts a distinct view of atonement later on his life, but at least here, he mentions almost nothing about a substitution for humanity that is apart from humanity, but rather a joint participation in the difficulties of life, but also the holiness of God.

For sake of time, I won't elaborate on 2 Nephi 31, but suffice to say, the entire chapter is about transformative participation in Christ.

@halconero, I cannot thank you enough for this manuscript-level reply.  This is extremely enlightening, interesting, and educational to me.  I agree with you that the idea of being participatory in and to Christ is present in LDS thought, but had never before (to the best of my knowledge) encountered that wording from someone speaking from an LDS paradigm.  I intend to write a decent reply to you but must devote my immediate attention to another matter.   

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The extended family was always the bulwark of successful child-rearing, and the modern turn to the nuclear family is not nearly as successful. 

I agree.   Insufficient resources and talents is likely to occur with fewer numbers.

Given the mobility of the workforce though, not sure how extended families could work very well these days since too many would have independent households leading to more inequity among members.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True enough.  However, the exception proves the rule.  In the stone age, everyone in the village or cave was closely related.  Very similar to the family compound in the Philippines today.  The extended family was always the bulwark of successful child-rearing, and the modern turn to the nuclear family is not nearly as successful.  I have been disappointed that the Proclamation on the Family did not follow the Bible and Book of Mormon in favoring the extended family (Mosiah 2:5,8, 5:5).  The statue of a nuclear family on Temple Square doesn't help.

Close knit societies such as the Hutterite Brethren operate with extraordinary success when compared to the modern degradation of most American families.

If you are talking about Hunter-Gatherer societies a lot of them were not monogamous so I doubt you would hold them up as that much of an ideal. Agriculture is believed to be one of the prime drivers towards marriage and monogamy.